D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

In what way would opening a door with a 7+ lead to a tentacle-monster attack while opening the same door with a 10+ wouldn't? Where's the in-universe justification for that?

Sorry. I meant 7-9 and not 7+.

 

[Oofta]

The GM hinted at a looming threat in the water, but the party nevertheless ignored it:

Even if Gandalf had a "success," it may very well have been a mixed success (7+) rather than a full success (10+), which would further justify the previously established threat coming into the forefront. Keep in mind, that the monster attacking could still count as a soft move: "A tentacled monster comes out of the water and begins attempting to grapple you. What do you do?"

But the character that failed (Gandalf) was not attacked. Frodo succeeded and was attacked. That's the disconnect that DW doesn't seem to handle as far as I can tell.

 

[NotAYakk]

In what way would opening a door with a 7+ lead to a tentacle-monster attack while opening the same door with a 10+ wouldn't? Where's the in-universe justification for that?

That is easy.

A previous move warned the players there was something in the water.

They try the door again. A 7+ takes longer to work it out. In doing so, the monster has time to wake up and attack.

On a 10+, opening the door was faster. They get inside the door before the monster wakes up.

Alternatively, a 7+ means you missed the debris supported by the door. When it opens, that debris falls, waking the monster. On a 10+, you work out how to open the door -- but also notice the debris. And you shore it up before you open the door.

Alternatively, on a 7+ you work out the door but you mispronounce the key word slightly. This leads to the door opening, but slower.

So 3 reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry. I meant 7-9 and not 7+.

Even so. Where's the in-universe justification for the different response? You said that the event in LotR in question can be handled with the DW rules. Is there an in-universe justification for the result of that resolution, or is it just how the mechanics work?

 

[Lanefan]

All that you say is fine; however, I was talking more about the compatibility of principles and play agendas rather than game mechanics or the game resolution system.

Those things are rather tied together though, aren't they? A game with a play agenda that says one thing and mechanics that say another* isn't likely to work as well as one where they align.

* - 2e D&D frequently gets criticized on this basis.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is easy.

A previous move warned the players there was something in the water.

They try the door again. A 7+ takes longer to work it out. In doing so, the monster has time to wake up and attack.

On a 10+, opening the door was faster. They get inside the door before the monster wakes up.

Alternatively, a 7+ means you missed the debris supported by the door. When it opens, that debris falls, waking the monster. On a 10+, you work out how to open the door -- but also notice the debris. And you shore it up before you open the door.

Alternatively, on a 7+ you work out the door but you mispronounce the key word slightly. This leads to the door opening, but slower.

So 3 reasons.

The only one of those things that actually happened in LotR though was the first (the monster takes time to wake up), and even that is supposition without firm textual evidence. It does fit the observed events as spectulation, though, so I guess that works.

 

[Lanefan]

LotR is a pretty verisimilitudinous novel. But we don't have "nothing happens".

Sure we do. We just don't get to read about (most of*)those instances in the books; instead we're left to merely assume they happen all the time between the key moments we do get to read about.

Which is a key thing that makes RPG play different from reading a novel: we can allow "nothing happens" moments to occur without any real issue. We're not on a page count, or a time clock, or under any other external limitation.

* - yet even in LotR there's nothing-happens moments. All the unsuccessful attempts at the gates of Moria, for example.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure we do. We just don't get to read about (most of*)those instances in the books; instead we're left to merely assume they happen all the time between the key moments we do get to read about.

And we're not forced to read about that stuff because...?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The freedom for both GMs and players to declare what they want to do and do it, without any requirement to figure out what "move" your proposed action counts as. The freedom to not concern yourself with following narrative beats and pay-offs, but rather simply to live in an imagined world and make choices.

This is

literally nothing

like what playing Dungeon World is like. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed NOT to do this. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed to only trigger moves when the fiction requires it, and never for any other reason.

So yeah, nor surprised you're pushing back. You aren't actually talking about DW. You're talking about some other game entirely.

 

[FrozenNorth]

OK, while I've never played DW, I'm currently running MotW and almost at the end of our second mystery. I'm still very new to the system in general and none of us have actually played a PbtA game before this. So... help me out here.

Let's say the PCs see a (non-magical, non-living) statue and decide to talk to it. In both a logical and fictional sense, nothing would happen and this clearly wouldn't trigger a move. What would you, as a Dungeon World GM, then do. In my mind, unless there was a logical and in-fiction reason for the PCs talking to cause a different problem (attracting a monster, activating a sound-based trap), saying "nothing happens, what would you do?" makes sense.

And I don't want to have a game where the PCs test every square inch of the floor with an 11-foot pole, in case any of their actions cause a trap to be sprung because ain't nobody got time for that, so I don't want merely talking to a statue to cause major problems.

I have DMed MotW a couple of times. From my (limited) experience, WHY a player does something is as important as WHAT they do and HOW they do it.

The games encourages the Keeper to communicate with the players to understand their goals.

Once you know why the character wants to interrogate the non-magical statue, it should be easier to understand what comes next.

“Why are you talking to the statue?”
“I feel there is something suspicious going on”
“Ah, roll Read a Bad Situation”

Also worth noting that there are plenty of soft moves a Keeper can make if interrogating a non-magical statue doesn’t reveal anything and the rest of the party doesn’t seem to have their own move to follow up.

Off the top of my head, “reveal offscreen badness”, advancing the countdown, and put someone in trouble (which doesn’t need to be one of the party).